Sonny Bonofide wrote:

---

$ R Us wrote:  "To charge fees, you have to deliver real value. Free services have never been highly valued." This is the most outrageous statement I've ever seen made by a representative of a public institution of higher education. Members of my profession are expected to deliver pro bono services.  

---

I am speaking from ignorance about the relative merits of SBDCs and BACs (so I should shut up, you say), but I wouldn't make a big to-do about Cecil Burge's statement (I have never had a reason to question his integrity). Many of the services we (my department) provide to the community range from  pro-bono, to sliding scale, to full cost contracts. For example, we did some personnel work for Northrup in Pascagoula at contract cost (which was a less than a private firm would charge). They received good work at a reasonable price, graduate students had the opportunity to gain experience in a new research area and to receive higher stipends, summer faculty support was had, new equipment was purchased that could be used for other research, and the university recovered overhead. A standard fare event in psychology departments, and not controversial. Note that we also provide great low cost psychological services to the community as part of our training model, and we do all sorts of pro bono work.

Cecil's comment about perceived value and cost is, in a general sense, correct. Dissonance theory would predict that free services may be less valued than services that are paid for, and the client will probably be more engaged and active if some fee is charged for services. The trick is not to get greedy or mercenary about it, and to remember our core mission is as a public trust.

I guess we all get suspicious when a change such as this is announced because of this administration's constant harping about adopting a "university as corporate business" model, profit centered management, and economic development as a fourth evaluation category. What the Dome never really understood is that many of us were already in the mindset of seeking alternative revenue streams well before the SFT era, and doing so without sacrificing the core mission and spirit of university. The new buzzwords thrown around by this admin (I love "change agent" also), as Prof Lares would note, have power-the power to degrade the core mission of the university and to reduce "buy-in" (like it?) by the folks who identify as teachers and researchers and who are the ones writing the grants and contracts.               

Mitch wrote:

---

Dissonance theory would predict that free services may be less valued than services that are paid for, and the client will probably be more engaged and active if some fee is charged for services.

---

Mitch, I read today that inmates at the Hinds County Detention Center will now have to pay $10.00 to see a doctor. If you're are right I guess the $10.00 co-pay means they'll be more engaged and active.